By David Arome
War brings loss to all, both people and nature. Nature suffers silently, and the environmental impacts of war and armed conflicts are often overlooked. We believe that the destruction of nature and habitat deserves more attention because the consequences extend beyond conflict and seep into fragile peacetime.
For the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), publishing reports assessing war’s environmental damage is often perceived as highly controversial. Nevertheless, countries can request such assessments. Ukraine has done so, and now the state of Palestine also has.
In a preliminary assessment published this week, it is clear that the environmental consequences of war in Gaza are unparalleled. The evaluation reveals that Gaza’s inhabitants face rapidly growing soil, water, and air pollution, and there is a risk of irreversible damage to its natural ecosystems. UNEP reiterates the call for an immediate ceasefire to protect lives and ultimately help reduce the conflict’s environmental impacts.
Most people know that war destroys everything, including nature, but few might have heard that under the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA 6), where all the world’s environmental ministers gather, UNEP received a strengthened mandate – a resolution to assess the environmental impacts of conflicts. UNEP will develop and secure technical guidelines for measuring environmental damage during war. As there are rules in war, there are also principles for environmental protection in armed conflicts, known as PERAC principles (Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts).
There have long been concerns about the political sensitivity of this work. The UN is the best system we have to respond to and handle these challenges, but UNEP has been explicitly instructed to limit its work around conflict areas. This was evident when Russia applied extra pressure on UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen after releasing a similar report on the war in Ukraine.
The negotiations on this resolution were highly challenging, with Ukraine as the proposer and Russia, Israel, and Palestine present. That the UN Environment Assembly managed to achieve consensus in this politically demanding situation is impressive.
Thus, it was gratifying that the resolution was adopted, providing UNEP with a renewed mandate to engage in this work. We need tools and guidelines to measure the impact on nature during war, also to restore and rehabilitate the environment when the conflict ends.
The resolution proposed by Ukraine is potentially the most significant text on the environmental impacts of armed conflicts to date. This is especially important as we see now in both Ukraine and Gaza how the destruction of industrial buildings and infrastructure, such as water pipes and sewage systems, leads to pollution. Phosphorus bombs also render agricultural land unusable.
GRID-Arendal has been a partner for UNEP in developing both of these reports. This is difficult work due to access to information and the political climate. However, the importance of this information outweighs the difficulties. By showing the consequences of war and conflict on nature and the environment, we can contribute to a more comprehensive diplomatic approach.
It is not hard to understand that the primary focus is on the lives lost in a war and the economic consequences for the countries involved. But our planet is under such severe pressure that the environmental consequences of war and armed conflict should be given much more weight. War destroys all life, including our livelihoods. The consideration of nature is reason enough to avoid war. The paradox is that environmental destruction will eventually lead to more lost human lives.
The resolution on “Environmental assistance and recovery in areas affected by armed conflicts” was adopted by consensus at UNEA-6, signaling broad support from the international community. This resolution urges all countries to adhere to international law on environmental protection during conflicts and contribute to restoration efforts afterward. Our hope is that all nations will take responsibility and drive concrete results for this crucial work moving forward.
Click here to see related post
I know that war causes environmental impacts, Japan has been my case study for this because there are documentaries on this effects on the citizens. So I never support war but talks.